Re: [asa] Science's Blind Spot: The Unseen Religion of Scientific Naturalism

Though this thread has somewhat veered from Hunter's book (Matthew's OP) and the idea of an 'unseen religion of scientific naturalism,' there do seem to be important questions for both TE's and IDists to confront.
   
  If Peter is an ID-friendly computer engineer (there are apparently a solid percentage of engineers among IDists) and Ian is also working with computers, then this question of the analogy between engineering and biology can be addressed by them. From how I interpret Peter, there is a legitimate complaint that 'evolution' simply does not belong in his area of work. On the other hand Ian accepts evolution even in human-made things (e.g. computer programs are human-made), which makes me question how willing Ian is to delimit evolutionary theory.

  In this case, I side wih Howard, to the effect that the analogy between biology and engineering can be overstretched. 'Reverse engineering makes of prediction a contradiction.' This is one of the greatest shortcomings in the IDM, the fact that they have yet to explain the difference between ID in biology and ID in human-made things. Behe's references to mousetrap and Easter Island and Mt. Rushmore betray his field of expertise - this is why I constantly harp on his preface to ID: THE BRIDGE (1999) when he said ID has "implications for all humane studies." Who is he (bio-chemist) to say this? When asked to step back from such an overstatement he would not do so.
   
  However, to take the side of Peter (if I understand his grievance), it doesn't make sense to say computer programs 'evovle' for the simple fact that they are 'designed' purposefully, intentionally and with a goal in mind by human beings. This idea of 'machine learning' is certainly interesting, nevertheless, it is a mechanical analogy for that depends for its existence on human ingenuity and invention. It would be absurd to say that 'the computer' evolved INTO existence! To be clear about my argument here, I am saying that the 'origins' of the computer cannot be exaplined by evolution, but that 'processes' of change in a program, though they are not strictly biological, can be said to 'evolve' in a neo-Darwinian evolutionary way (i.e. origins vs. processes).
   
  When someone argues that evolution is purposeful, intentional, involving mind, and intelligence (and information), this is simply not the evolution that Peter or I or most others identify with. It would be absurd to say that 'the computer' evolved into existence by RM+NS. Yes, there might have been 'unintended consequences' during the process of 'designing/inventing' computers by human beings. But just as NS has nothing to do with computers (which are neither organical nor purely natural), the preferable concept would be HUMAN SELECTION, which requires social-humanitarian thought to be brought into play. This is why I keep harping on invitations to social-humanitarian thinkers - you simply need us to 'complete' the shortcomings in your theories and methodologies!
   
  As an example, Howard's paragraph below is already addressed by sociologists of science and technology - they have been following around scientists and engineers and watching what they do (e.g Bruno Latour et Michel Callon), effectively de-mystifying the 'priesthood' according to scientism. In this sense, I can 'prove' the 'design' simply because I am a reflexive human being who has watched the 'designing' (which IDists almost completely refuse to discuss!) in its process. The 'proof' is in the alibi. But then again, what Howard writes here is also full of humour! :-)
   
  "How do you prove the Space Shuttle and similar engineering structures were designed? Is there a scientific test? No! It is a matter of faith not science. Does the theory that it was designed make any predictions? Indeed there are written records of how they were designed. I think the records were just made up. Maybe the naturally occurring metals just rolled down the countryside and just came together to form a space shuttle. It’s true that we don’t understand it all – but we will do one day, without having to invoke the superstitious view that it had something to do with civil engineers. I am not going to believe in the existence of civil engineers until you show me something that they actually do."
   
  Sooner or later we are involving the realm of teleology, which neither biology nor engineering computer science typically address. As a social-humanitarian thinker it strikes me time and again as a place for potential cooperation given that human-social sciences deal both implicitly and explicitly with teleology, meaning, value and purpose. And though they study something more complex than either biology or engineering (because they deal with decision-making and free will), they are nevertheless capable of making contributions to knowledge and practise as are biology and engineering, two disciplines which are now presented as being at the forefront of the greatest challenge to materialistic-physicalistic-naturalistic versions of neo-Darwinian evolution in the name of intelligent + design.
   
  Arago
   
  p.s. Ian Strachan wrote: "I think everyone here would affirm that God created the universe, and designed what the laws were, so that we would inevitably arise."
   
  Doesn't this sound a bit like what an IDist would say, folks? All one needs is to merge an 'evolving creation' with a 'designing evolution' (that involves mind, intelligence and [divine] information) and voila -- convergence!
   
  
Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
  

  On 7/19/07, Taylor, Howard G <H.G.Taylor@hw.ac.uk> wrote: On the Q of whether engineering can be used as an analogy of the biological world , yes it can, but as with all analogies there are certain things the same and certain things different.
  As to whether the argument from design in engineering is an analogy in the argument from design re the origin of life, no it isn't - it is the same argument because there is no viable alternative to design in both worlds.

Dear Howard,

Could I question your assertion that there is no viable alternative to design in both worlds. In the engineering world, what about "machine learning" (the branch of computer science that my PhD was in). One form of machine learning is "neural networks", which learn complex sets of parameters via simple rules in response to repeated presentations of data sets. They start from an initial random guess, and then home in, without further design input, to the solution. For sure, the problem representation has to be designed at the outset (as indeed God had to design the laws of the universe - a statement even Darwin concedes). But after that, the learning procedure is automatic. Moreover, it has been shown often that the learning process improves by the addition of random noise (akin to mutations in evolutionary processes).

Such a system exhibits design in that the design work was all done "up front", but the process of progression from an initial bad solution to a good one required no further design input.

I think everyone here would affirm that God created the universe, and designed what the laws were, so that we would inevitably arise.

Iain
--------

       
---------------------------------
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 19 13:02:01 2007